It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Isn't there enough to think about without dragging in all these offbeat theories about holograms, drones, UFO's, reptilians, and any other speculative nonsense?

Nit picking a few pixels from mostly amateur photographs and videos is hardly going to progess the discovery of the truth.

Further compounding this pointless line of inquiry is all the (with all due respect here) insane alternative theories. I'm sorry, but very few rational people are going to look at a few discolored pixels and join the choir. There are enough statistical anomalies, timeline descrepencies and flat out caught-bold-faced lies surrounding 9/11 to destroy any "official" story, without needing to discredit the entire truth movement with all this extra garbage.

I often wonder, and this may just be me thinking wildly here, but I wonder.... How many of these wild claims are planted, intentionally, to catch and contain segments of the truth seekers to later discredit them. "You see, these people are just plain crazy!" I hate to be the bearer of bad news here folks, but lets think about it.

It is argued the planes could be drones because no luggage or bodies were found (or disclosed to have been found). Yet the official story reports the fire was hot enough to melt the steel and bring the towers down. Most people will simply assume this is also hot enough to vaporize a corpse and its luggage. Your arguement sends you straight to the 'Nutter' bin.

It is argued the planes could have been holograms. Yes, theoretically possible, I suppose. But honestly, how many people are you going to convince of this with absolutely NO EVIDENCE. You offer a lack of evidence as proof. I can't disprove God, therefore God exists. Or conversely, You can't prove God, therefore, there is none. A lack of evidence means nothing. Evidence, evidence, evidence. There is enough of this to support plenty of theories, sadly, holograms are speculative, at best.

Pods attached to the planes. Another bunch of misdirected counterintuitive speculation. A few smudged pixels is evidence of one thing, and one thing only. Poor film quality, poor photography, and poor analysis. I can dig through the 10 boxes of photographs my mother in law has and produce probably hundreds of ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, UFO's, aliens and Santa. Just because mom is horrible with a camera, uses cheap film from walmart and a $40 camera doesn't prove any of these things, not counting the obvious. Gullibility.

I'm not trying to be hateful. I'm not trying to flame or troll or be a thorn in anyone's side. I'm trying to make a simple point. None of us are taken seriously because of the fringe crowd and their wild speculation. I enjoy a good read as much as the next guy, and find these arguements amusing, and though none can be readily disproven with physical evidence, there is plenty of circumstantial and logical arguements that lead one away from such ideas. I do not make a habit of discussing my speculation on what really happened, unless directly asked, because thats all it is. Speculation. I would much rather direct people to do a little reading, in both the official story sector, and the conspiracy theory sector, and form their own opinion on the matter. Sadly, I must preface every direction with "Please, take with a grain of salt the UFO, pod, hologram and 4th dimensional reptile theorists." There is a TON of valuable information to be found in both schools, but sadly, our side of the fence has quite a few people who seem to want to discredit us all by making valid comments, pointing at solid evidence, then pulling on their crazy hat nice and tight and ranting about aliens and drone planes.

In direct reference to the photo that started the thread, the plane looks completely normal in every way. Funny that... a normal plane. Who'd have thought.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


One correction, in my last paragraph (just noticed, too late to edit). When I said the CAM recording is never heard by the public, I should have mentioned the ENTIRE CVR channels, all of the ATC and Interphone recordings, also are not broadcasted. They may, of course, be transcripted as I previously mentioned.

Thanks



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I passed it passed johnlear. He said the mic from the plane to the control center or tower is not always open. Neither is the mic for internal use. However, if the mic back to the control center or tower is held in open position, all noise and conversation will be recorded at the control center, just as it is in what people refer to as a "black box". I was told and shown the control center and plane taped conversations many years ago. Johnlear was kind enough to explain it again so that I had recall of that experience so many years ago. I watched the change of full tape to empty while visiting an FAA control center.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LeeHarvey
 


With all due respect, a KC-767 (or any other modified civilian passenger jetliner) converted to drone, while inserting standard passenger windows, looks exactly like any other 767 model used for civilian use. Until someone inspected the inside and/or was versed in any external differences, no one would be able to tell the difference between the two, particularly if KC-767 was painted with some airline's same logo and colors. When something is traveling at speed and distance, it is difficult for even experts in aircraft - civilian and military - to tell any difference.

The only difference I noted, when comparing a 767 vs KC-767, is the fuselage lacks passenger windows and airline ID paint. Otherwise, to the unversed in the finer points of aircraft models, they look identical.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Yes, Orion, an 'open' mic will be transmitting on whatever frequency is currently tuned on the transceiver that is currently selected and would be, therefore, recorded by whatever facility was within 'line-of-sight' VHF reception, assuming that facility was utilizing one of those frequencies at that time. For clarity, line-of-sight will vary by altitude, at normal airline Flight Levels, it's about two hundred miles. That's why we use HF over water...shorter wavelengths can cover longer distances. They actually propagate thru various atmospheric layers...

Back to the 'open' mic...it will sometimes pick up normal conversational tones, when it is accidentally left in the 'talk' position...either because of a problem in the switch, or, more often, accidentally being pushed by a pilot's leg as he/she relaxes during the boring part of a long flight. Very annoying for the controller, since due to the nature of VHF it is nearly impossible to talk to anyone else on the frequency when there is a 'stuck mike'. Oh, and since it's a transmitter/receiver, then the offending crew cannot hear any incoming transmissions. That's one reason, not the only one, that it is now common SOP to monitor the 'Guard' frequency Domestically, as well as Internationally, which was SOP for a long time.

Hope that explains in more detail...feel free to "run it by JL" if you doubt my veracity...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Hi all,

I think this web site sums up quite nicely all of the faults in the plane photo, it just does not look right, the shadows seem all wrong; anyway take a look for yourself.

Flight 175

Peace.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WeAreOne
 


Interesting. Thanks for posting this, didn't see it before.
It's an analysis of a the NOVA video, not the picture discussed in this thread. As its resolution is very low and motion blur removal PS filter always adds artifacts, it's easy to find anomalies in 2-3 pixels IMHO.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   
On the same site, the analysis of the "CNN Brooklyn Heights photograph" that appears to be the one discussed in this thread. Some shadow anomalies there, when compared to a Flight Simulator 3D model shadowed with PhotoShop...


The "Port Wing Anomaly" is nicely debunked here by Eric Salter, taking into account the upward flex of the wings due to aerodynamic lift.

[edit on 2007-12-29 by nablator]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have no reason to doubt your veracity. I had run it passed johnlear without seeing your original post in this discussion. I did so because I needed someone to jolt the recall.


My point was, if that was the case of open mic back to the control center handling that sector of air space, the FAA has the same information the "black box" would have. It would be interesting to compare what the center had, with what has been stated are "black boxes" from alleged flights.

I do not recall the FAA releasing their tapes. Perhaps, someone else does, but I do not. During my research, I look to see if they released any an transcripts of their tapings. Because without actual physical comparison, we have no idea if what the FAA has, or at least has stated to have, actually transpired as well on any alleged flights.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAreOne
 


Not to mention the probability odds of going in with a vertical belly, and hitting not one, not two, but three (and possibly 4) 4" d reinforced concrete floors, at least 12' wide, all that redundant steel, inclusive of trusses, under the floors, and horizontal exterior structural steel beam supports under the floors. That is in addition to penetration of two exterior steel walls, with a cone shaped aluminum skin hollow nose. While not throwing off any plane parts or contents to the outside of the building.

I am giving odds of nil to none that would ever happen in any civilian plane impacting either twin tower. Planes can only reach a certain speed when closer to sea level, or they encounter their own and nature's resistance trying to speed up. It can cause a plane to start breaking apart in mid-air, depending on how much force is exerted on the weight and mass horizontally resisted, plus, any and all vertical resistance. That will definitely cut velocity impact force.

Think of flying into a head wind and then flying in the same direction a head wind is going. One will cut velocity impact force. The other will increase it. It has nothing to do with revving the engines for more speed. Nature intervenes at that point.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by LeeHarvey




Isn't there enough to think about without dragging in all these offbeat theories about holograms, drones, UFO's, reptilians, and any other speculative nonsense?


Thanks for your thoughts Lee. I don't see those subjects as speculative nonsense and neither do thousands of others here at ATS.

You may wish to continue uninformed (what the heck do YOU think about anyway?) but people come to ATS to exchange ideas and information about holograms, drones, UFO's and reptilians.


Nit picking a few pixels from mostly amateur photographs and videos is hardly going to progess the discovery of the truth.


You never know where the truth will be found.


Further compounding this pointless line of inquiry is all the (with all due respect here) insane alternative theories. I'm sorry, but very few rational people are going to look at a few discolored pixels and join the choir. There are enough statistical anomalies, timeline descrepencies and flat out caught-bold-faced lies surrounding 9/11 to destroy any "official" story, without needing to discredit the entire truth movement with all this extra garbage.


I consider the use of the words 'insane' and 'garbage' to be the result of a less than awesome vocabulary.


I often wonder, and this may just be me thinking wildly here


We often refer to it as a 'rant'.


but I wonder.... How many of these wild claims are planted, intentionally, to catch and contain segments of the truth seekers to later discredit them. "You see, these people are just plain crazy!" I hate to be the bearer of bad news here folks, but lets think about it.


All rants are welcome, even from the uninformed.


It is argued the planes could be drones because no luggage or bodies were found (or disclosed to have been found). Yet the official story reports the fire was hot enough to melt the steel and bring the towers down.


No, I think the official NIST temperature was around 200 degrees. Not nearly hot enough to melt steel


Most people will simply assume this is also hot enough to vaporize a corpse and its luggage. Your arguement sends you straight to the 'Nutter' bin.


As you know several different temperatures are used to cremate a corpse. At one point 2800 F is used. The whole process takes between 45 minutes and 2 hours. Luggage somewhat less.


It is argued the planes could have been holograms. Yes, theoretically possible, I suppose. But honestly, how many people are you going to convince of this with absolutely NO EVIDENCE. You offer a lack of evidence as proof.


Actually the proof of a hologram is that everybody saw the planes and photographed the planes. What more evidence do you need. I mean its not like there was any wreckage remaining in or around the WTC.


Pods attached to the planes. Another bunch of misdirected counterintuitive speculation.


Counterintuitive speculation: against non-logical contemplative thought?
What in the heck are you talking about?


A few smudged pixels is evidence of one thing, and one thing only. Poor film quality, poor photography, and poor analysis. I can dig through the 10 boxes of photographs my mother in law has and produce probably hundreds of ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabra, UFO's, aliens and Santa. Just because mom is horrible with a camera, uses cheap film from walmart and a $40 camera doesn't prove any of these things, not counting the obvious. Gullibility.


If its not too much trouble could you post your mother-in-law's pictures of aliens? Thanks.


I'm not trying to be hateful. I'm not trying to flame or troll or be a thorn in anyone's side.


You could have fooled me.



I'm trying to make a simple point.


You could have fooled me.



None of us are taken seriously because of the fringe crowd and their wild speculation. I enjoy a good read as much as the next guy, and find these arguements amusing, and though none can be readily disproven with physical evidence, there is plenty of circumstantial and logical arguements that lead one away from such ideas.


So you are saying none of the arguments of wild speculation can't be readily disproven with physical evidence? But circumstantial and logical arguments will lead us away? From such ideas?

I have to admit that I got tangled up in that one.


I do not make a habit of discussing my speculation on what really happened, unless directly asked, because thats all it is.


I thank the Lord for small favors.


Sadly, I must preface every direction with "Please, take with a grain of salt the UFO, pod, hologram and 4th dimensional reptile theorists."


I would like to hear a little more about the 4th dimensional reptile theorists. You could start with telling me what the heck that is in the first place?


There is a TON of valuable information to be found in both schools, but sadly, our side of the fence has quite a few people who seem to want to discredit us all by making valid comments, pointing at solid evidence, then pulling on their crazy hat nice and tight and ranting about aliens and drone planes.


Its not a crazy hat. It’s a genuine ATS/John Lear Official Tin Foil Hat:




In direct reference to the photo that started the thread, the plane looks completely normal in every way. Funny that... a normal plane. Who'd have thought.


I rest my case for the holograph theory.


Thanks for the rant.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
What more evidence do you need. I mean its not like there was any wreckage remaining in or around the WTC.


John,

Please allow these to load..







Regarding this image.. impact zone perfectly matches the shape of the plane. Metal shows signs of an object breaking in not exploding out.



Plane debris visible.



Image of debris on the ground before either tower fell.



Tire in NYC.



Smouldering engine in NYC.

What do you have to counter these images?

Regards.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


It takes 11000 F to vaporize an entire plane. Cremation always leaves bones and bone fragments coupled with ash.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


I have a problem with the hole in the wall. By all logic, part of any alleged plane should have been kicked to the outside, if an alleged commercial jetliner made that hole. Part of an alleged plane did not knock out that section of double steel wall.

What were those alleged wings doing at the time to be angled up so disproportionately? Was there enough room in the section I referred to on the left to allow any wing, much less any engine, to get through that slit? Isn't that intact steel around where an alleged left engine would be plowing through?



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Originally posted by SteveR


John,

Please allow these to load..



Steve, we are about 500,000 pounds of airplane short here. Got any other parts?





Steve these are all extruded metal piceces from the exterior of the WTC. That little green part with the 3 windows could not possibly have come from and airplane that took 2/5ths of a second to disappear into a building. This part of the exterior fuselage would have been crushed to smithereens. Use your noggin!



This photo is called the Wile E. Coyote WTC Memorial Cutout Scam. Controlled explosives where used to make this cutout coincide with holographic image being projected. No airplane actually crashed into the WTC. It was a PsyOp.


Regarding this image.. impact zone perfectly matches the shape of the plane. Metal shows signs of an object breaking in not exploding out.


If an airplane had really crashed into that building we should have most of the tail outside on the ground. The reason is that 60 feet inside was the core of the building which would have slowed the progress of the fuselage and instantly buckled the aft fuselage causing the tail to separate. You see when it hit the core with the nose there is still 95 feet of airplane outside the builiding. Thats why those videos of the crash are not realistic. They didn't account for the jolt when the nose hit the core.





Plane debris visible.


No. Sorry. No plane debris here. Plane debris would be horizontal and vertical stabilizers and parts of the fuselage. What you see here is concrete and metal extrusions.




Image of debris on the ground before either tower fell.


Yeah I think I see a 3 bladed propellor out there.







Tire in NYC.


Yeah off UAL 175 or AA 11. The axle should have serial numbers we could match with maintenance records.

But probably some one just dropped it off out of a van, like the engine.




Smouldering engine in NYC.


This is a smoldering CF-56 like they use on a Boeing 737 or 70 series DC-8's. Its too little to be off of a Boeing 767. CF-56 are made by General Electric and UAL whose airplane this supposedly came of uses Pratt & Whintey engines. Specifically the JT9D-7R4D. Sorry about that.


What do you have to counter these images?


You must be joking. Thats all you got for 500,000 lbs of airplanes?

Thanks for the post anyway.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The picture, with what looks to be blue painted metal, looks like galvanized sheets of steel. Nothing that would be used to support the structural integrity of twin towers. But would be the same material used in HVAC ductwork.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
As far as I am concerned, using a trash collector bin in that manner for forensic evidence, is no way to properly handle forensic evidence, particularly for the most heinous, costly mass murders of US history - 9/11/2001.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the post John..

Can you explain how one would be able to place a smouldering jet engine on a public sidewalk outside the WTC? Without being noticed? And, what about the broken street sign?

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Actually the proof of a hologram is that everybody saw the planes and photographed the planes. What more evidence do you need.



Errr... what?

Everyone saw the planes.. and photographed the planes.. and that proves.. holograms? I'm missing something here.

Thousands of people attended the superbowl, and thousands snapped photos.... Those frisky holograms are everywhere I tell ya!

I'm not, of course, backing any official story here. I will speculate loudly that this was an inside job. But using overly complicated means to achieve the goal? It would be far easier to use real planes, coupled with real explosives... No need for any high tech visual effects. Why simulate it when the real thing is so much more reliable.

It seems rather simple to me. Holographic technology may not be "cutting edge" stuff anymore, but it is terribly complex.

I suppose, a few dozen projectors, several hundred speakers (for all that lovely jet engine noise), fans to create the wind (to add to the effect, of course), the screaming, running mobs. Yeah, I can see doing it that way. Deffinately more cost effective than writing up a piloting program to remotely control a couple jet liners to smash into a couple of static objects.

My question is, where did all the speakers, projectors, wiring and power hookups go? Surely, someone, somewhere would have seen or noticed SOMETHING to support this wild theory (Aside, of course, from the planes themselves.. which naturally prove the whole thing is a trick of smoke and mirrors. No one would use REAL planes... never!)

Sorry. I guess I'm as looney tunes as the next sheep in line.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeeHarvey
Everyone saw the planes.. and photographed the planes.. and that proves.. holograms? I'm missing something here.


You most certainly are — missing something.

This is so trivial I cringe bringing it up. Photographs and films of something are only anecdotal if the occurrence documented is grounded in reality. Otherwise we have a specific name for such products, they’re called ‘movies’. Movie as in a Hollywood feature picture. They look just as real as the real deal — but they are not.

During the 90 minutes between the first plane ‘impact’ and the first tower annihilation there was NO talk of airplane wreckage in the streets of NYC. Therefore whatever we ‘saw’ couldn’t have been a physical actuality.

No Plane, There Was A Bomb.

If you believe everything simply and solely based on a visual image, then yes, you are ‘looney toones’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 12/30/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]




top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join